Interview with the Assassin

This film is amazing. 100% amazing. Everything about it is so real, all the little touches lead to it looking like a true documentary, and yet there are some great filmmaking techniques that are "happy accidents" that advance it as a dramatic story as well.

The lead actor is frighteningly good, as is the mostly off-camera actor playing Ron... very impressive and just downright astonishing.

Recommended easily, and its very rewatchable too. Hell, even some real documentaries don't hold up to repeated viewings like this mock-one does.

This film had a really good premise - the presentation of a fictitious (to some of the viewers out there : yes, FICTITIOUS!) story within a factual-like packaging. This is something that Michael Crichton has done in his books in the past in titles such as "Eaters of the Dead" and "The Great Train Robbery". When done well, as Mr Crichton did, this technique can make an otherwise ordinary or even boring story great. I thought that this was what "Interview with the Assassin" was going to do.

The film started out well and the performances were good - Raymond J. Barry was particularly well-suited to his role. Later, though, it began meandering and in the end, became little more than just another Hollywood mass-produced flick. I wished that the director would have been a little bit more consistent in his vision. What did he want the movie to be? A documentary (albeit a fictitious one) or just a standard thriller? In the end, unfortunately, he took the latter route.

Documentaries which examine things in real life usually do not have a beginning, middle, and end - life is just not this tidy. This movie, however, does have a beginning, middle, and then a neat little resolution of things in the end. Movie goers can then dust the pop-corn off of their chests and return once more into the grind.

In short, "Interview with the Assassin" was a movie which could have been something new and exciting but instead ended up being something old and mediocre. As a documentary, it is not very believable (at least to me it wasn't.....), and, as a thriller, it is not very good.

I learned an important lesson from Interview with the Assassins. If your elderly neighbor claims to have shot John F. Kennedy... run. Rob Kobeleski, the main character of this film, unfortunately didn't know that. Interview with the Assassin is about a reporter, Rob, whose neighbor, Walter, claims to have been the second gunman on the grassy knoll on that fateful day in Dallas back in 1963. Intrigued, Rob tries to learn more, but gets himself in over his head as a massive conspiracy unfolds around he and Walt, putting both of their lives in more danger than he could have imagined.

The intriguing catch to this film is that it is all shot from Rob's perspective. Rob operates the camera and we follow the story along from his eyes and his vantage point. It adds a very unique allure to a film with an oddly compelling story. It makes the film a very interesting watch and it engages us in the story in a very different way. Of course, without this gimmick Interview with the Assassin likely wouldn't amount to anything, but that is usually the case with these kinds of films; see Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project.

Personally, I'm a sucker for these types of films. I haven't seen one in this style that I didn't like, and the same goes for Interview with the Assassin. It's a great little film that excellently blends suspense, action, and gripping drama. The story is one of those that makes you turn your head in confusion at multiple points, sometimes out of absurdity but mostly out of genuine interest in the bizarre story that unfolds in this film. There are definitely some odd and possibly unnecessary elements in the film, and the script falters at points, but overall this is a unique experience. Granted it doesn't amount to a whole lot and you can sort of see the climax coming, but for a relatively short film it's totally worth the watch.

Walter is 62 and has terminal cancer. He has a confession to make before he dies, and he chooses cameraman Ron to tell his story to. Apparently Walter fired the shot that killed John Kennedy.

Ron and Walter visit Dallas to see where the event happen, and later they go in search of the truth ... but someone doesn't want them to know what really happened. Toward the end, things get interesting but ridiculous.

Raymond Barry was very convincing, very natural as Walter. Most of the characters in the movie seemed like real people. The jerky, almost amateurish camera work made this seem like a real documentary. Nearly all of the film was told from the point of view of one of Ron's cameras, including security cameras at his house. It was a very low-frills production, with almost no music except for radios and background music playing in buildings.

I'm no expert, but this seems like the sort of film that wins awards or at least gets nominated. If it had been a real documentary, it probably would have.

Although it seems strange that the film (apparently coincidentally) opens on the day of the 39th anniversary of JFK's assassination, it thankfully stands on its own as an intriguing look at the possibility of the "grassy knoll gunman" theory. While it is by no means a conspiracy or propaganda film, it is, in fact, a "fake documentary" a la Blair Witch, that seems often very real thanks to Raymond J. Barry's amazing performance as a nut (or is he?) who claims to be the second shooter in the President Kennedy's assassination. His commanding presence adds a sense of danger and seriousness that makes the film such an impressive and challenging piece of work.

First time writer/director Neil Burger brings you in to the story and keeps you wrapped up in it in a way that most great feature films do, while still having that gritty documentary feel. Dylan Haggerty plays the cameraman who is "lucky" enough to become involved in such a dangerous story that he cannot decide if his subject is for real or not until he goes over the edge.

It's a fascinating concept, really. Imagine someone with information of that magnitude coming forth with his story only because he has a few months left to live. Would anyone really let that happen? As closely guarded as the true evidence is, you can bet that it wouldn't, which is also examined here in a fantastically twisted web of paranoia, obsession, and fantasy.

For anyone that's ever had a fascination or interest in the JFK assassination, this is a must see. Art house folks will probably eat this one up as well, as it is challenging and thoughtful, and completely free of any Hollywood gloss - what a combination! This one is definitely worth catching in the theater.